At some point, you may eventually reach the conclusion that I am always telling you exactly what I think, and none of it was ever subterfuge, but to reach that conclusion you'd have to first admit that honest people can disagree with you, and I'm not sure your ego can handle that.
Of all the people here, you are among those I trust the least to say what you actually think. Granted, you will give opinions that I have no reason to believe are not true representations of your own beliefs, but you will never provide the reasoning which might allow anyone else to ever engage with those opinions. Thus, your disagreement is not honest, because you seem to be unwilling to disclose the most important part of any argument, which is the reasoning behind it.
I don't have any real investment in what you believe is or isn't morally wrong. That has no meaning or relevance to me (save that it's emotionally very uncomfortable to watch someone defend child-abuse). I care about why
you believe that. That is how your opinions become comprehensible to others, and to me, and if you're not willing to show the reasoning behind these things then I don't think you really have the license to complain about being misrepresented or portrayed as dishonest, because noone can possibly know what you actually mean. In fact, that seems like it might be the point.
Duh! Seriously, duh. Of course it's immoral for children to have a sexual identity. Even if a little boy were to walk up to you and say "I like wieners" , you still shouldn't be categorizing that boy as "gay", because the idea of using desires to segregate people into distinct groups shouldn't be taught to children.
Remember when you said "gender is a social construct" and I said that I don't think you know what that means..
Let's say you're a letting agent and you need to quickly explain a client how big the rooms in a flat are. How would you explain that to them in terms they can understand?
I'm going to guess that your answer would be to use a standard unit of length which you both understand, like "meters" or "feet". Those units are social constructs. They don't actually exist except as a form of learned consensus. However, everything physical that exists in reality can still be measured in those units.
The problem with social constructs is not that they are are fake or imaginary, because they aren't. Where social constructs become a problem is when they lead to internalized biases or assumptions about reality that are incorrect. So yes, it would be wrong to assume that a little boy who likes wieners is gay, but not because that boy is incapable of being gay or being aware that he is gay, not because being gay is meaningless or because sexual orientation as a concept is bad for some reason. It's wrong because that's an oversimplified and reductive view of sexuality that will likely lead to incorrect conclusions.
Sexual orientation is a "social construct", but it is a social construct because there is a shared, consensus-based understanding of what it means. You know what it means, which is why you used the example you did. You can't pretend its meaningless when you know the meaning.
An identity is what you use to distinguish yourself from others. That's the idea of identity. We should not be cementing the idea that your thoughts make you unlike other people in the minds of children. That is morally wrong.
Why? It's true.
Your thoughts do make you different from other people. We all have unique minds and unique thoughts, which is why we need "social constructs" in order to be intelligible to one another. There's very little difference between deciding that a person is male because they have a dick and deciding that a person is gay because they like dicks. Both are capable of fostering division, or leading to incorrect conclusions.
The mistake here, and the thing that should be interrogated, is why you have assumed that being unlike other people is bad. Because that is a hell of a revealing assumption.